I was hoping for more activity with this one Shades and thanks for the initial Post. Great topic for opinions and thoughts but looks like majority staying silent and probably because it has been churned before but since we are looking at the summer months and a window for more activity, I'll keep it going.
Mergers and acquisitions in general are complicated and many aspects of an organization's operations need to be considered. Most importantly membership but also legal standing and bylaws. I think I touched on mission and goal being the vital part of a successful merger as well (in any business) but let's look at other drivers for a good fit.
In my experience youth soccer and services can be boiled down fairly quickly to two pools of parents.
One willing to travel and able to pay (at any cost), and then everyone else. Today I would say in the most part the former pool due to additional resources (money), paid coaches and passionate parents provides better results. I think these two pools of parents are mutually exclusive (per child). As a parent I would not want my child (specific one in mind) joining a club charging $$$$ per year regardless whether it was small or massive. Our family has different priorities and a budget to consider and I think in general we have realistic expectations for this child that values competitive, regional soccer where friends are made and lessons learned (not thinking about a soccer scholarship as end goal). Being fair it is reasonable that many of our club members (another child of mine) do want that scholarship and so our club will need to answer that question either this year or next (at latest). This will force either an extension of our services in a new direction, partnership (feeder system), or a merger and is a responsibility we take very seriously.
Of course you might have a club large enough to provide all levels of soccer including rec but with municipal organizations controlling most of the rec (and some developmental) players today, this is not the case in the lowcountry. Most clubs are focusing on developmental, academy, select, and above. If we look at this notion of money being a driver for merger, then some existing clubs might merge parts of their operations and keep the less profitable (volunteer based) community based rec soccer in house.
SCUMP, DISA and parts of JIYSC, CUSC and SSC make sense.
We do not provide �pro� or older soccer at this time so intentionally excluded
Actually since SCUMP and NASA share some aspects: fields and I believe some leadership, this would be a good merger and allow SCUMP to honor its motto of all youth, all levels, all soccer (in the most part). Still then the MP acronym as someone already suggested could get tricky. Still what�s in a name anyway? Before you ask, we chose Cainhoy whose population is less than a soccer team only as a rallying point for a larger district (Cainhoy peninsula) and to help encourage rural, local families to get involved and have ownership. If you look at our crest it is downplayed with more emphasis on the Athletic. In addition we added a clause to our bylaws and values specifically promoting access and a welcome to everyone regardless of domicile. Of course this is easy when you are not affiliated with a municipal entity in any significant way. I say that because we are very grateful to Berkeley County for their planning and construction support.
Now, geography must play a part especially in the pool of parents that simply don�t want to travel more than 20 minutes to training midweek on a school night for little Susie aged 8 or 9. So mergers would still need to operate regional sites (and trainers). Does this then mean we are only talking about merging leadership? Sounds like it at the low end. For example, with geography and less fanatic parents involved a merger for us would be better suited with MPRD, the City, Hannahan Rec, NASA, Goose Creek, and parts of DISA and CUSC. Remember the City (CUSC) has annexed all of Daniel Island, Clements Ferry Rd, parts of Cainhoy Road, and even higher sections of Highway 41 and beyond (our turf). With less competitive programs, we would need to be careful with mergers that we actually make the problem of enrollment worse if we remove local options for training (regardless where the club is registered and what the crest looks like). This would also bring in the question of equity of services to remote sites. Typically when mergers (in business) happen, the weaker party usually ends up getting the shaft sooner or later. In soccer I suspect this would equate to inferior coaching and investment in local sites off the beaten track in year two (or even month two) but I could be wrong (no experience to make that comment but like it).
Now, here is a thought, let�s say a club with diminishing registration reaches out to CESA or Discoveries and merges to increase their marketability. Would that be seen as a good thing in the lowcountry? I was on the phone with Andrew at CESA today and he seems like a decent chap and refreshingly honest. Of course this is just me having some fun and certain CESA wouldn�t be interested in swallowing us up (with all our construction obligations making a sad balance sheet) but it is worth throwing into the dialog as an option for any club with a more attractive (proven) outlook or track record. Would readers in the lowcountry welcome more involvement from outside or would we like to manage and control our own corner of the state? I can�t imagine anyone would care as long as the soccer was great and value present.
CHT and Shades I certainly understand and in some aspects agree with your stance and hope we will see a few more opinions and ideas shared as it is a lot of fun. We do all agree I�m sure in getting more kids playing soccer wherever they choose. I agree administrators and membership should consider the larger picture, and their responsibilities to the families they serve and if it is time to give it up, do so or at least undergo a renaissance or forge new partnerships that improve the opportunity and quality for everyone. In the end analysis, you don�t need that much money or too many coaches to operate a relatively successful, happy club, but you do need some money, a few good coaches, and a stable supply of players.
I can�t help feel that there are some specific targets with this post and would love to understand some of the feelings that �hurt� lowcountry soccer as described. Being quite new to this soccer world and club operations I must be missing something as all at the Coastal district AGM the other night seemed happy enough with the status quo, LSYSA competition, and content with their lot.
Some specific thoughts to get this post moving and more interesting�
�To many people wanting what they want and not what's best for all the players in a club�. If that is the case parents should see this and leave. Don�t need a merger to fix it.
�There are those that are happy coaching their ten or eleven players twice a week and no one is practicing around them� - Guilty as charged with this one. I love our space. Tonight we had four groups going in about 4 acres: One with me and U12G on a full U12 field. One U10G team working on set pieces, corners, and dribbling on half field. One group of about 10 working with Jason from Academic Magnet on GK skills in the other goal, and the last group gaining technical training with Nigel Marples of the Charleston Battery on two 3 v 3 fields. No contention and coaches bickering like I ran into every week at a much larger club last year. Parking is very easy and no pedestrians walking dogs or pushchairs through the middle of key coaching lessons. Any merge that removes this would be a disaster.
�club is almost empty but they are happy in their own little world..If no one is coming thru the gates you can only look at the glass half full for so long..Volume..Whatever it takes to get kids into these clubs learning the game is what we can call a success and all I have seen is a serious decline in enrollment over the last couple of seasons.� Agree with this one although we haven�t seen declining registration and SCYSA is pleased with growth to over 20k children this last year for the first time. Probably aimed at one or two clubs.
�so you don't have a 8v8 team with 14 players� I have a U12 with actually 15 and need them. It is different at rec level as kids aren�t that keen and bail often in favor of tennis, sleepover, or in this week�s example Taylor Swift. Rarely have I taken more than 11 to a game and even only had 7 the other day from 15. If you are used to passionate (obsessed) kids and families, you probably don�t understand this one.
